The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low. At the time it was widely reported that this was caused by man-made climate change and that the rate of decline of summer sea ice was increasing.

Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080. It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020.

Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns. Arctic weather systems are highly variable year-on-year and the prevailing winds can enhance, or oppose, the southward flow of ice into the Atlantic. Consequently, the sea ice has not declined every year, but has shown considerable variability — both in extent and thickness.

The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.

About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists. We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.

Fascinating. In Klyashtorin and Lyubushin’s book, they show how Arctic ice coverage mirrors global temperature, with an 8 year lag, and predict 30 years of global cooling. So, if 2007 was the nadir of Arctic ice, followed by 30 years of “robust” recovery of ice, that would put the start of the next melting in about 2037. Thirty years of melting after that could mean an ice free Arctic in the 2060-2080 window. Has the Met started reading Russian?

They seem to be covering their backsides with every paragraph, yet despite attributing the 2007 to prevailing winds (somewhat belatedly) they still claim it is consistent with the model that originally told them it was global warming wot dun it!

These are supposed to be leading climate scientists yet they don’t seem to apply any logical analysis to what they say. I think they are slowly reaching a tipping point when they fess up and admit it is all part of natural cycles and that man’s CO2 contribution will not cause runaway anything.

Dorlomin: DMI is not posting because since October 1 data not reliable. Upon re-adjustment will look more like 2005 probably…same applies to Jaxa, Norsex etc. CT just goes ahead they dont care….as long as it goes down

Sadly, I’m getting a “connection reset” error when trying to access the Met Office page linked to from above. I did search Google News in the hope of finding another link buried somewhere, but instead found this splendid bit of tosh:

When will these morons realize that low arctic ice is dumping enormous amounts of heat out to space. I think DaveE suggested this forms a negative feedback system pulling the climate back to equilibrium, or at least its attractor.
Positive feedback and linear trends in the climate system are for kid’s stories.

The State of the Arctic Climate System
Analyses of climate series from the European Arctic show major inter-annual and inter-decadal variability, but no statistically significant long-term trend in annual mean temperature during the 20th century in this region. The temperature was generally increasing up to the 1930s, decreasing from the 1930s to the 1960s, and increasing from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature level in the 1990s was still lower than it was during the 1930s.

I like this in the last paragraph: “The observed temporary recovery…….indicates that the Arctic Ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.” I like it for two reasons, one is that they are introducing doubt that a tipping point exists and the other is their complete inability to sense that a tipping point has been reached, one that has now tipped the whole process back into freezing back up.

They are tiptoeing around in the dark. What happens when the light goes on?
============================================

There’s an interesting pattern emerging on the current AMSR-E sea ice extent chart. It looks to be following the 2006 track in shape, but at a much lower total area number. Anybody know if the weather patterns in the two years are similar?

“2007 … reaching an all-time low”
By all-time low, can we take it they mean since 1979?

“Modelling … shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events”
Can’t recall hearing that point being emphasised in the past. Better late than never I suppose.

” in part, to unusual weather patterns”

Can’t recall that point being made at the time. Perhaps they’ve been watching Jeff ID’s most excellent video demonstration.

“The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.”

We’ll be looking forward to assessing the accuracy of their prediction for next year, taking into account their ability to model trend and variability. When does the Met Office propose to publish its prediction?

“About half of the climate models involved ”

That’s about as even-stevens as it gets. Half don’t agree with the other half.

“now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend”

So the trend period is varied to get the required answer. What was all that about not cherry-picking the last 10 years to make a point?

Bearing in mind that TWO of the “quality” selection of people who are credited with proving content for the London Science Museum’s Prove-**it website are from the Met Office, I wonder if the museum will rewrite the content to match this new data?

I’m frankly getting sick and tired of this constant scientific drivel about polar ice coming from people who should simply be telling us the facts rather than aiding and abetting the MSM in telling yet another AGW scare story.

And, of course, we should ask where is the follow-up in the MSM when the forecasts are way off, as was the case this year? Well, here’s the follow up:

LONDON, Oct. 15, 2009
Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years
British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months

(CBS/AP) The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that the explorers walked – and swam – 280 miles across the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, drilling hundreds of ice samples as they went.

The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea earlier this year during their research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around six feet deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.

—

And a mere two weeks later we have the Met office contradicting this report!

Back2Bat, it was probably that Monty Python quote. They had to check that it was accurate . . .

I’ve had the same thing happen to me, of my comments awaiting moderation, and I’m usually just off topic with my comments. I don’t think you should take it personally. And besides, you don’t know if those four comments were actually submitted before yours, and maybe they had to wait 30 minutes before their comments were approved.

“Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?”

I think they should bring out that roulette wheel the “experts” were playing with a few months back. Just add numbers representing “the years before the arctic melts after we are gone” and give it a spin.

Anthony: Of all the questions you’ve asked over the years, this one, “Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?” is the easiest to answer.

Possibly, responding to criticism of non-falsifiability, the warmists have provided a falsifiable prediction. Sadly, as pointed out earlier, few of us will be around to call them on it in 2060 or thereabouts.

From the press release, “The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.”

They can detect it but they didn’t quantify it.

They continue, “The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.”

But it’s also consistent with a multidecadal period where El Nino events dominate.

They continue, “About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that THE ARCTIC ICE HAS NOT REACHED A TIPPING POINT, IF SUCH EXISTS.”
[My caps]

They conclude with, “We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.”

“though there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modeling from the Met Office.”

It seems to me that when an organization or researcher refuses to release his data that it cannot really be called ‘data’. It is, after all, only rumor, until released, & should be refered to by that name.

It seems to me that when an organization or researcher refuses to release his data that it cannot really be called ‘data’. It is, after all, only rumor, until released, & should be refered to by that name.”

Well who’d have thought the Met Office would jump onto the ‘lets-cover-our-arses’ train this soon… :>o

Much better if they came clean and said,

“We now realise that the degree of ice formed at the poles is the end result of many inter-linked non-deterministic dynamic chaotic processes, as is the rest of Earth’s climate systems. Currently we have no clear understand of how these complex processes work on an individual basis, or how they interact with each other to produce the nett effect.

We also do not have accurate enough data of sufficient granularity to even start to quantify the outcomes of these processes and even if we did, the power of the total population of computers in the world would be insufficient to process the data to be able to provide accurate forecasts of climate change.

Until all the above issues have been resolved, the best information we can give is that our sun is the main driver of climate change, and CO2 has little or no effect.”

Until the Met Office decides to be honest and publish the above statement of fact, they are not an organisation to be respected or trusted.

Fidel Castro said you should predict things far enough in the future so you won’t be around to explain why they didn’t happen. The MET finally figured this out. Perhaps they should apply the same logic to their summer and winter forecasts. “2087 will have unusually warm weather.”

I predict we’ll all be dead by 2105. (I know it will be cold by 21:05)

Lo! The weasely wordsmiths at the Met Office are ‘robustly’ backpedalling, glory be!

“Ifs and buts and apples and nuts” as my father used to say and are the Met finally reading the BIG picture?

Mr. McIntyre’s recent clinical deconstruction of Briffa, some off message doubters at the BBC…………….. something’s afoot.

Alas the loony British Politicians continue the ‘we’re all doomed’ scenario, do they not read anything about and around the subject of AGW………..do they read??
If anyone were to read recent relevant news/science articles, they would surely conclude that the science is very, very far from settled and back off…………..fat chance!

The Arctic Ocean sea ice is not going away anytime soon, 2060/80 it will be there still, I’m equally confident in saying, that I won’t be.

“Modelling[sic] of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080.

And in a generation, these same type of backward looking people will be warning of a new ice age, even though the climate will again be warming up a bit.

In climate, as in every other publicly-funded endeavor, disaster looms and must be carefully studied {♫ Money … ♫ We need money … ♫ We need lots and lots of money ♫} to prepare for the coming predicted changes.

An interesting post on real climate explaining that reduced Antarctic ice melt observed in recent years is not inconsistent with AGW. In this analysis they are, IMO, correct but they use natural variability to explain why. Agani probably correct but if natural variability matters then it matters generally and until GCM’s build ENSO, NAO, SAM and the rest into their models they are never going to deliver robust ( sic) results

OIn summary record low antractic melts and record high arctic melts are both caused by natural variability… and what else I wonder.. quite a lot and nobody knows till we get models that work

Once again the ‘prediction’ is around 50 years… Close enough to be frightening, but far enough away to be hard to prove or remember by anyone who is around now….these predictions are always just out of reach and ‘steps’ must always be taken now to prevent any further warming … I’ve just been reading my tea leaves and I am expecting a BIG bill from Copenhagen…

That ought to be re-written as: ” Observations based
on non Met Office satellite data shows that ice MAY
invariably recover from SOME extreme events….”
I am American, and I really enjoy this blog. My
country is in for a bad time, maybe we can start cutting
our losses by 2010, (around the time the ice melts).
Time to fasten my seat belt.

Just got back from Piers Corbyn’s conference in London. Two BBC journos showed up; Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Black promised to report Corbyn’s prediction of a serious weather event in the North Sea between 17 and 19 November.

Oh, and get some warm clothes. According to Corbyn we’re in for a cold and snowy winter.

I’ll have some videos from the event on Climate Realists web site soon !

The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low.
The arctic ice has been measured in this way since 1979. This is what they mean by “all time”. At the Met Office time began in 1979.

…and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust.
Note to readers: in climanetics the word “robust” has a special meaning – it applies retrospectively to past observations as in “last years football scores were robust”.

Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns
This is blasphemy. Are they really saying that random natural events can be of similar size to … mankind ?

The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.
So – it’s all over the place – and you cannot pin it on greenhouse gases – but there is a human signal. What is a human signal ? A voice ? Morse code ? Some writing ? These people are supposed to be scientists and they are talking about “human signals”. What are they on about – jungle drums at the North Pole ?

The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.
Well it’s just a pity that they did not publish this trend and this variability beforehand – like normal predictions.

It gets better:About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.
So their own model – or models – show the ice recovering. But about half the models show the opposite. Are they wrong ?

The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.
They have observed a recovery. Not a temporary recovery. The results for 2010 are not in – yet. Not until …next year. Too early to say if it’s temporary or not. This is junk.

They really saved the best until last – nobody knows if there is a tipping point. Are they hedging ?

Regarding models, I agree entirely. I had to correct my (geology/geochemistry) PhD thesis from saying ‘models show that…’ to ‘has been modelled as…’ after one of our Professors picked up this very issue – models cannot prove or show anything, because they are built on a series of assumptions of various degrees of correctness, and then generally modified to best fit with any available observational information.

Sounds like a horoscope. What kind of weather event? The North Sea is a large body of water and storms aren’t exactly rare in November. Isn’t this just the Barnum effect?

Maybe he’s right about the upcoming winter, but it’s pretty mild here at the moment (and there’s no sign of it getting colder soon). Perversely, I hope he’s right, because I like cold winters (though not too cold, thank you).

Did he actually reveal what his method was, or was it just some armwaving about solar activity and the moon?

Our planet’s highest monthly maximums of incoming sunlight (insolation) at the top of the atmosphere occur not in tropical latitudes, but in polar ones. The top-of-the-atmosphere insolation at the North Pole peaks in June at about 520 watts per square meter. By contrast, the insolation at the equator peaks in March at about 439 watts per square meter.

I see what they’re doing but even here they’re wrong. The maximum insolation is the SOUTH pole around the Winter solstice unless I’ve got it the wrong way round. (I was sure the Earth was closest to the Sun during NH Winter.)

I just have to ask, exactly what has happened in the past few months that has caused such a massive change in the output of the models?

If there was some massive, unprecedented ice buildup in the Arctic then sure, I could understand. But there has been nothing out of the ordinary, and yet we are supposed to believe that suddenly the models show icy summers in the arctic for the next several decades.

Logically, it would seem that something other than the input of raw data is affecting the output. In which case, projections (both current and previous) are suspect.

“exactly what has happened in the past few months that has caused such a massive change in the output of the models?”

Probably nothing Chris.

Just imagine the massive piles of data coming from multiple runs of these models. These will be open to ex postfacto interpretation and selection, so there will always be somebody who can claim that something is “consistent” with what they had modelled.

Like the person who comes home from a day at the horse racing brags about how well they did on the 3:15.

Or the person who said that share prices would go down three years ago .. and just look what happened!

Or the quatrains of Nostradamus – we kinda get their full meaning after the event, as they are twisted to fit known past events.

Slightly off topic, has anyone got any ideas as to the effect on arctic ice next summer of the past month or so being significantly above average in temperature and, hence seeing a delayed start to the steepest phase of the annual freeze-up?

My gut feel would be, all things being equal, that sea ice minimum next September would be no higher than 2009 and possibly slightly lower?